robert a/k/a r wrote:
Markus, in my post there was no suggestion that we form a committee of
joint vlogger fund, perhaps you misunderstood.
Of course there is always allocation of scarce resources questions, I
assumed it a given since we are all grown ups on here and already know
that.
Markus, in my post there was no suggestion that we form a committee of
joint vlogger fund, perhaps you misunderstood.
Of course there is always allocation of scarce resources questions, I
assumed it a given since we are all grown ups on here and already know
that.
The sole purpose of the post
David Meade wrote:
On 12/22/05, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Finally, let's not confuse CC licenses with the works they license.
CC is not responsible for all the great "CC" content that is out there
we are
Well, true, but with out CC a huge portion of what
On 12/22/05, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Finally, let's not confuse CC licenses with the works they license.
> CC is not responsible for all the great "CC" content that is out there
> we are
Well, true, but with out CC a huge portion of what we consider cool in
vlogging -- the inherr
robert a/k/a r wrote:
>Alert: An UNCOOL sword is dangling a bit close however, the IRS demands
>proof of public support for CC.
>
>Bottom line, CC has a very short window to prove "public support" to
>the IRS, Lessig (and all of us who release under CC) request support,
>please click a few buck
This is *extremely* important, everyone -- I hope we can show our support, in any way we can afford. Fact is, we can't afford to live in the copyrighted world without CC licensing.Podcaster Herald
http://podcasterherald.comproducing via CC licensingOn 12/22/05, robert a/k/a r <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
